jbfield

A fair idea, but I think you'd have to move it a little further out than just the other side of the M42 as you'd have content with the arrivals/departure overflying Coventry, Birmingham, Kenilworth, Leamington Spa, etc. This one of the main constraints for airports should you want to maximise capacity, in addition to their own physical footprint.

It's not impossible, but I suspect if you were going to be a new hub, you'd be better of putting it closer to the M40...e.g. where RAF Honiley was.


Personally I'm not sure why the airport, if it's going to create jobs and growth as the proponents claim, should be focused on the South East of the UK. Surely there needs to be one further north to help the economy up there, instead of trying to cram yet more development in the South East.


It's surprising to see what the "Hub" actually delivers today in terms of transfer passengers. Heathrow is mostly a Point-to-Point operation.

missdimeaner

I would vote for extra runway(s) capacity at LHR, just beef up the existing infrastructure to cope with extra passengers.
To start from scratch seems financially impractical, compared to extra investment in an existing facility.

I don't want to hear about the noise pollution, we live in a city.....it's noisy. We also get 'quiet time' at night.

My son's house is between JFK and LGA, along with several thousand others, funny thing is that I rarely hear complaints from the locals there.

Rant over, just so fed up with all the nimbys

HIDDY

I suggest instead of pumping more money into what will always be a far too small LHR they should look at ways of making LGW much more attractive to airlines.
Changing the LGW name to LHR 2 would be a good start.

flyingcrazy

There was a similar proposal called Heathwick.
Build a second runway at LGW and link it with Heathrow with a 15 minute airside shuttle train and basically turn LGW into Heathrow South.
Interesting plan, basically combine two airports into one.

Cradders

Without wishing to start some kind of internet based argument, that comes accross as a rather arrogant Londoner's view in my opinion, oscietra.

Perhaps London does have 20% of the country's GDP, but I am sure that the affected surrounding area (in this case the West and Midlands) also contribute significantly. It's also a fairly irrelevant statistic, in my view - unless the data was analysed to see what relevance it had to air travel.

I'd suggest that international air travel connections are important to the Midlands as a major manufacturing region of the country, and likewise the South West, as this is where the majority of aerospace manufacturing in the UK takes place (an industry in which we are number two in the world, after the US).

I would imagine that manufacturing regions inherently need good air connections because there is a good amount of travel required in order to serve export markets (the increase of which is of course essential to resolve our country's budget defecit). As someone based in Bristol, the ability to get to Heathrow in under two hours and consequently pretty much anywhere I need to go in the world relatively easily is invaluable, particularly as a global manufacturing organisation.

If Heathrow were to close and be replaced by a Thames Estuary airport, it would be much more inaccessible for point to point travel by the majority - or at the very least extremely inconvenient - and that would include the residents of West London as well, don't forget. In that situation, the benefit of a UK hub would be lost: I may as well simply fly from BRS to AMS and fly on from there. That can't be good for our own economy, surely?

I'd also add that as that Daily Wail article does state that McLoughlin points out that any decision should be in the interests of the UK as a whole.

Financial services aside, much of the rest of the UK contributes significant amounts to the country's balance of payments. To overlook this from a strategic perspective in terms of infrastructure planning would be extremely short sighted in my opinion.

1010101

Ideally they would build a new airport on open space somewhere just North of London. Accessible within a reasonable time via HS2 by Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, but still London's hub. Of course people would flock to that just as they did with LHR and in 50 years time start moaning about noise again.

Whatever they do, they've missed the boat. People are already learning to avoid LHR unless London is your final stop. In the 20 years it takes them to approve/build anything it will be a white elephant. For that reason LHR 3rd runway really is the only viable option, and it needs to be forced through as a matter of urgency after the 2015 elections.

olybeast

The report is out today.

Shortlist:
New runway at Heathrow
Lengthen Heathrow North runway to 6000m so it can act as two runways
Lengthen Gatwick south runway



How much did this report cost?

layz

We'll on the BBC just there they mentioned the Boris proposal didn't make the short list but they're going to waste further money on investigating it. Listening to Davies on the TV give me the impression that the UK has no ambition and is happy to be doing the minimum needed.

oscietra

It was always going to be challenging for Thames Hub to make its voice heard above a very well-financed and slick Heathrow lobbying team, who have everything to lose and are very well connected. It's good that the commission has recognised that, and levelled the playing field somewhat by requiring further funded investigation into the Hub proposal and its wider implication.

Given it's a much less well understood proposal, this does seem prudent, and also gives it time for people to get more information. For those who call time on Thames Hub, I'd highlight the story of the tortoise and the hare....

Here's the Press Release, including a link to the 228 page interim report:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a...interim-report

I was very disappointed with Howard Davies. Very modest ambition, some overly simplistic anti-hub airport comments (divorced from the issue of Heathrow/Thames Hub, he just doesn't see the need for a hub) and some off the wall and hugely disruptive sticking plaster solutions with the "extension of an existing runway" fudge the daftest I've heard yet. Startlingly short-sighted.

At least the sensible Thames Hub proposal at the Isle of Grain has been identified as the only Estuary option:

www.fosterandpartners.com/ThamesHub/

JimEddie

Few things to cover based on the report this morning and the various interviews.

Firstly, I'm not entirely sure what Howard Davies was on about with the hub vs point-to-point comments. He pointed to the growth in point-to-point at the other London airports and then uses that to suggest that London doesn't need a bigger hub. Isn't the real reason that this growth has occurred because the growth has largely been from low cost and/or charter carriers. If there had been sufficient space at Heathrow I am sure that there would have been a similar level of growth at Heathrow.

Second, Howard Davies talked about the constellation of airports around London and the capacity that they provide. Unfortunately a constellation approach to the UK hub does not generate the transfer traffic that is important in developing services to new destinations in places such as China where the flow of transfer passengers is key to the success of the service. In addition, whilst there is no doubt that there is significant capacity left in the London airport system (mostly at Stansted) the fact that this capacity remains and the discounting of the landing fees by MAG surely shows that the constellation approach doesn't work.

Third, Gatwick. Yes it needs more capacity but this cannot happen in isolation. As was pointed out by Boris Johnson simply adding capacity there will not get the major global airlines to move from Heathrow.

Fourth, I can understand why the Isle of Grain is still in the list but requiring further assessment. It appears that the commission is rightly looking at more than just "airport capacity" and is actually wanting to consider the socio-economic implications of shutting Heathrow and replacing it with an airport on the other side of London. In the end however I still believe that this will not be the option taken forward because of a mix of cost, the socio-economic factors and location.

And finally Heathrow. The double length runway won't be the final option, purely because on a balance of risk it's a bad idea. I assume it was put in to show that they were considering non airport generated ideas.

Cradders

It seems to me that the report was essentially pointless. It just comes across as a document intended to placate all parties instead of providing anything of use and substance. In other words, kick things down the road a bit further instead of worrying about them.

Disappointing, but not surprising. If things get postponed until after 2016, at least there will be a good chance Boris Johnson will pipe down a bit, which might help create some actual progress.

crazy8534

Is there anywhere else in the world that operates a single runway for both arrivals and departures simultaneously? I am intrigued and not entirely convinced that I understand the proposal correctly.

Greg66

The LHR North west runway appears to cut across the south side of the M25/M4 junction. That is a large and elevated junction, which presumably would have to be put below ground to accommodate the runway (I'd imagine the gradients would be a bit steep for a motorway if nothing more than a chunk of the M25 south of the junction was interred).

Nice as the islands ideas are, I can't help but feel that they are hugely expensive, and wouldn't provide a working solution until about 20 years from now. Furthermore, the simple fact is that any solution that abandons LHR will leave behind it an economic vacuum in the area, due to the huge amount of local work LHR provides.

At the risk of appearing to be a Luddite, what (if anything) happened to the idea of rotating the runways at RAF Northholt 20 degrees or so, making that a short haul hub, and connecting it to LHR via a high speed monorail? I always quite liked that idea.

clarkeysntfc

In my view the best option to set the UK up for the next 100 - 150 years is:
- 4 runway airport at Isle of Grain (incorporating rail links from Cross Rail, St Pancras and HS2)
- 1 new runway at LGW & BHX
- enhancements at LTN (taxiway extension, terminal upgrade + runway extension if feasible)
- increasing LCY capacity (taxiway extension, terminal upgrade + runway extension if feasible)
- close LHR.

britishchris

Would it even be possible to get from Heathrow to Gatwick in 15 minutes?
Surely it would need to be a high speed train, and we all know how well we do those in the UK